User talk:Pilaz/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Pilaz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Model United Nations. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Model United Nations conferences, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barnes ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_Model_United_Nations_conferences check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_Model_United_Nations_conferences?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Three Worlds Theory
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Three Worlds Theory. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ronna McDaniel
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ronna McDaniel. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Forum for Democracy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Forum for Democracy. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Anti-Imperialist Association
I think I need your help with a case of vandalism. Someone reverts the article always to a status which is historically inaccurate. Maybe you can take a look at the discussion. How do I report vandalism? In the German Wikipedia it is different. Derim Hunt (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Populism
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Populism. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antifa (United States)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antifa (United States). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of concentration and internment camps
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of concentration and internment camps. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Boris Johnson
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Boris Johnson. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Progress Party (Norway)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Progress Party (Norway). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Right-wing politics
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Right-wing politics. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Right-wing populism
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Right-wing populism. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nationalism
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nationalism. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Self-coup
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Self-coup. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Feliciano
Hey, I'm not the author of the article Feliciano Canaveris. I have placed an article deletion form (author) to several pages referring to that Canaveris family.

Hey, Pilaz, about this family, the articles referring to (Juan de Canaveris, Feliciano Canaveris, Joaquín Canaveris, Carlos Canaveris, José Canaveris, Héctor Canavery, Manuel Canaveris, Juan Manuel Canaveris, Sinforoso Canavery) must be proposed to be eliminated.

Thank
 * Hi, thank you for contributing to the effort. Of the ones mentioned above, you are listed as the creator of Carlos Canaveris and Sinforoso Canavery. Do you want to have these two speedily removed? Pilaz (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, Pilaz,
 * I'm trying to understand your focus upon editor Ford489 and his work when you are a relatively inexperienced editor. It seems like unusual behavior. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Liz. My focus is not upon Ford489 per se, but upon his articles. By shuffling random articles, I stumbled upon Feliciano Canaveris, which I found lacked historical notability and failed WP:BASIC due to a lack of secondary sources, so I nominated it for an AfD. By looking at the connected articles, I found a lot more poorly sourced articles which engaged in WP:REFBOMB. Eventually, a pattern of creating articles to constitute a genealogy emerged. Underneath it all, there is a much more worrying pattern of page creation by banned sockpuppets as evidenced by a 2015 investigation, and of which I suspect Ford489 is a descendant, as I've argued in a case I filed today. I'm happy to discuss the merits of those allegations there, but the core of my recent efforts at the WP:AfD is that WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Pilaz (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As a sidenote, it is also worth noting that there are articles that Ford489 has written that will pass notability guidelines, such as Valentín Vergara which is likely to pass WP:NPOL. All content I've reviewed so far has been on a case-per-case basis. Could you maybe expand in what ways me being an "inexperienced editor" affects my ability to nominate articles for AfDs? Pilaz (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I appreciate the explanation of how you came to the deletion tagging you've been doing. We have a few long-time editors who are dogged at sniffing out poorly sourced articles but I was surprised at your behavior because you don't have the tenure here that is typical for someone who is insistent on properly cited articles. It tends to be a value and priority that comes after years of working on content creation. But if there are problems with these articles that you are highlighting, your actions are greatly appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like we were posting comments at the same time. Like I state above, it's not that relative inexperience prevents editors from nominating articles for deletion, it's typically not an activity that newer editors dive into. It takes some confidence in ones knowledge of the AFD process and the ability to put together a convincing argument. As an admin, I encounter many editors every day and I think I have a tendency to look at patterns of behavior, it wasn't a judgment on your abilities. Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, and I understand your perspective. Personally, I've been involved with AfDs since the summer of 2019, so I'm quite familiar with the requirements for biographical articles. Eventually, with biographies, you run into people mistaking Wikipedia for a family history blog, like I did in a 2019 AfD. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's just not policy to keep those article around. And at the end of the day, I agree with you: those fora is complicated and at times even contradictory, and it's not evident even if one knows the rules but ventures outside one's area of specialty. I don't think I'm going to be touching association football deletion notices anytime soon. Pilaz (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like you were correct about the sockpuppetry. Good call! Liz Read! Talk! 18:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And thanks for checking in, too. Pilaz (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tagging CSD G5
Hello, Pilaz,

Just a head's up on any future speedy deletion tagging you do, and by that I mean CSD G5. This is technically not a block for sockpuppetry. If you, Pilaz, created a sockpuppet and started editing with it, we would not delete pages that you and your sockpuppet created. G5 is speedy deletion for ban evasion and that is typically done through the use of sockpuppets.

So, if you were blocked today and a year later created a sockpuppet, let's call it User:November2022, then November2022's page creations could be deleted via CSD G5 because they are the work of a blocked editor committing ban evasion, meaning, you. So, when you tag User:Ford489's page creations as CSD G5, he is not the blocked editor whose name you add in to the field when you are using Twinkle, you add in User:Suarez12 who is the original blocked editor who is committing ban evasion through the use of the Ford489 account.

If this sounds confusing, it is, and if you look at my user talk page you can see several conversations where I go over this with other editors who frequently tag pages for speedy deletion. The distinction is important though because whichever editor you put into the field in Twinkle shows up as the blocked editor in the page deletion notice so it's good to keep things straight. Thanks again for all of your work on this incident. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, we only tag pages for CSD G5 when the sockpuppet is the page creator and the most substantial contributor. If other editors have made contributions to the page which are more than marginal (adding a tag, correcting a date, adding a category, etc.) then the page is not tagged for speedy deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Liz, thank you for the clarification. I gather that I should nominate the sockpuppeteer instead of the sockpuppets in Twinkle, which as you mentioned is something that's not particularly evident from WP:G5 or Twinkle suggestions. So thank you for that. Two additional questions: given that in the example you gave User:Suarez12 is a sock of User:2636z, shouldn't I nominate User:2636z instead? As for the contributions of others: do bot edits count as significant?
 * I'm going to be a lot more careful because I was mistakenly under the impression that adding a category constituted a minor contribution, but it isn't so. Pilaz (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Buen trabajo Pilaz, has salvado el mundo de mis garras. Si soy un "titere de calcetin" (pero no un gordo) tu investigación acerca de mis oscuros (cristalinos) propósitos a sido un éxito, deben entregarte algún premio por haberte esmerado tanto. Distintos tipos de gordos;


 * 1 Gordo parrillero, el que vive comiendo asados, este tipo de gordo posee buena maza muscular (alto en colesterol).
 * 2 Gordo porcino, el que consume sólo carne de cerdo. Este tipo de gordos se parece a los animales consumidos.
 * 3 Gordo choripero, come sólo achuras, muy panzón (proclive a los accidentes cardiovasculares).
 * 4 Gordo de pastas, consume mucho spaghetti, ñoquis, torteletis y otras pastas acompañadas con queso. (tiende a tener buena salud).
 * 5 Gordo harinoso, que es el mas débil de todos los gordos, come muchas facturas, masas, chocolates, alfajores, y golosinas en general. Tiende a ser panzón con brazos gordos pero flácidos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.129.98.190 (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC) --186.129.98.190 (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm really curious as to why you keep coming back to my talk page. Has nobody explained to you that Wikipedia is not a genealogy website (WP:NOTGENEALOGY)? Not only have you abused the user system after being indefinitely blocked, but you have maliciously created hundreds of pages for people (whom I assume are you ancestors) who do not meet our notability guidelines (WP:GNG) - and you knew this, since the sources you used are either name-drops in Google Books or altogether unrelated. Kindly find another place to host the history of your noble lineage. We're keeping the articles that meet the notability guidelines and, given your insistence, I will be thorough in nominating those that do not for deletion. Pilaz (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Me olvide de nombrar a los gordos fiambreros, también llamados gordos salameros, quienes consumen gran cantidad de embutidos, por lo general acompañados de cerveza o vino. Estos gordos son proclives a las enfermedades cardiovasculares.--186.129.98.190 (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk page
Please do not come to my talk page anymore. Lightburst (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless you plan to violate more policies, I don't see why I would. Pilaz (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK
Please read WP:OWNTALK. When an editor removes a post from their own talk page, do not revert them. Schazjmd  (talk)  23:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking that guideline, was unaware of its existence. Nothing specifically hints at restoring part of a conversation by other editors, though. I solely did because I was pinged and felt it inappropriate to reopen a new section instead of responding on the previous one. Hopefully this gives some context. Pilaz (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I figured you probably weren't aware of it. When an editor removes comments from their own talk page, you can presume the comment was read.Also, regarding Lightburst's comment above: when an editor requests that you not post on their talk page, you should not post on their talk page except when required to (such as posting a notification when you open a thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). A mandatory notification should be the only exception. Schazjmd   (talk)  00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair. For the record, Lighburst's message was posted after my reply to his ping, which was in response to me leaving a WP:NOTFORUM template on his talk page. Pilaz (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood, and I apologize if you took my comment to mean that you had done something wrong, because that was not my intention at all. I just figured since WP:OWNTALK was new to you, you probably would also be unaware that when one editor asks another to stay off their talk page, continuing to post on it after they make the request might be considered harassment. I'm not sure that's even written down anywhere, but it's a widely accepted social norm and I've seen editors get hammered for it. Anyway, I did intend my posts here to be informative, not scolding, so I hope you will take them that way. Cheers! Schazjmd   (talk)  01:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I appreciate you providing me with this information, and avoiding me to blunder by going back to a talk page from where I am banned (I had no idea that could be a thing). If problems arise between that editor and I, I'll take them to the appropriate article Talk page/ANI like you recommended. Thank you again for letting me know! Pilaz (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

mis-reading
many projects can be 'read' from their project page, the point for Australian sub projects - is that there is always editing of articles in the scope of the subject of the project, and by that they are all active - with the talk page and the up-front part of the project seem apparently inert. JarrahTree 06:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I understand that the structure of WikiProject Australia is to have lower WikiProjects dedicated to the geographic states of Australia, and it makes sense that some of those are more dormant than WikiProject Australia. I was following Template:WikiProject status which recommends putting the template there if there hasn't been a sign of life in four months; but after checking WP:INACTIVEWP I noticed that they recommend posting on the talk page of the Project, which I should have done. Given that WP:AUSTRALIA is active, do you reckon it would be okay to apply the "semi-active" template instead of "inactive" template? Pilaz (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * nah dont worry about it - the levels of activity/inactivity and perplexing turnarounds among the various state projects is a very slight part of the larger process - you are more likely to find other aspects of irregularlities that are more pressing than if some states are slack or some efficient - I personally have had better experience removing status markers and resuscitating projects than actually doing a 'tag' - something like a challenge sometimes. JarrahTree 07:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've decided to revert my tag, follow WP:INACTIVEWP and enquire about the level of activity in the future on the Talk page(s). Thank you for reaching out to me. Pilaz (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * hey courtesy all around is always worth the effort - I must resurrect the tag where someone within the last ten years or more was convinced Tasmania was another country, that was indeed a challenge to be polite there, although having lived there, I could relate to the issue in a very non-encyclopediac way... JarrahTree 07:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding bolding
To address your points. First, it doesn't alter the meaning of the editors comment; all it does is make it obvious to the closer, as the location and lack of bolding makes it possible to overlook. Second, the editor in question has been pinged; if they object, it is easy for them to revert - and if they don't, there is no issue. Third, you previously stated it was acceptable so long as I bolded all unbolded votes; as that is the only unbolded vote, I believe I have met your reasonable requirement. As such, I have reimplemented my comment and the bolding. BilledMammal (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * First, you are involved as nominator of the RfC and would expect you not to alter anything other than your own comments in the RfC. Since it's a pressing concern of yours that the closer will miss an unbolded comment (they are expected to read the whole discussion throughout, and you have access to Administrators' noticeboard to file a Closure Review if needed), I will be adding an additional comment to WP:CR to let the future closer know that some opinions may not be bolded. Second, I would rather have the editor in question actively bold their wording by themselves, if they so choose: you've already pinged them regardless, so if they really want to, they can accomplish that. Feel free to leave them with a message on their Talk page if you'd like. Third, I have changed my mind as a whole regarding bolding all comments (regardless of the fact that you didn't bold Lollipoplollipoplollipop's A vote either): per WP:ETIQUETTE, editing the signed words of another editor on a talk page or other discussion page is generally not acceptable. I am going to revert one final time, after which we'll have to discuss this at WP:AN/3RR if you really want to make your point known there too. Pilaz (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Setting aside WP:ETIQUETTE, which qualifies the statement with "generally", what is your objection to bolding that !vote? Regarding Lollipoplollipoplollipop's, their first choice, B, is bolded; I didn't see any benefit in bolding second choices. Finally, I would note that 3RR wouldn't apply here unless you reverted for a fourth time; the initial implementation isn't considered a revert. However, I don't intend to reimplement the change; I'll go post on Roger 8 Roger's talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. At any rate, I've added a comment at WP:CR and pinged you there. As for WP:ETIQUETTE, it is the only behavioral guideline on the matter, and I don't believe it can be set aside. No prejudice against you asking the user to actively edit his comment, like I wrote before. Best, Pilaz (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC) further edit: Pilaz (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the term "generally", there are exceptions. As such, I am asking what issue you have with the edit aside from technicalities; I believe it to be a reasonable and minor modification that doesn't alter the meaning of the comment but does make it clearer for the closer.
 * As a side note, I feel the notification was inappropriate if well intentioned; you had already made your 3RR concerns clear, and while I partially disagreed with them, had already stated that I did not intend to continue revert your third revert. BilledMammal (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Exceptions do exist, but they have to rise to a level of necessity, as the following sentence of ETIQUETTE states (Avoid editing another editor's comments unless necessary.) I think it's fair to assume we disagreed about what was necessary here. I note your concerns with the WP:3RR notification, but would like to remind you that any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. A notification precedes a report on a noticeboard. Your expression of not going forward with reverts must have been posted pretty much at the same time as my notification, so I did not see it at the time, but understand your sentiment. Pilaz (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For future reference, formal notifications are not required prior to bringing a discussion to the various boards; this conversation would have been sufficient evidence that you had brought your concerns to my attention - although if you had raised it at WP:3RR, I don't believe it would have been closed in the direction you expect.
 * Aside from believing that it was unnecessary, what were your objections to the edit? It doesn't matter at this point, but I believe it is generally important to have reasons for an edit beyond blindly pointing at a guideline for which exceptions to exist. BilledMammal (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Aside from our disagreement about what constitutes a necessity to edit someone else's comment under WP:ETIQUETTE (whether a "minor modification" in your words rises to being "necessary" seems counterintuitive to me), secondary reasons include: 1) the fact that we are both involved in the RfC should warrant not to edit other editor's formulations or wording, and 2) respecting the process instead of hand wringing it is usually a good idea. I don't expect the RfC to close within the next two weeks, so a ping to ask a user to bold their preference would probably get a response quite soon. For reference, the essay Process is important covers much of the second point. Pilaz (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you had a reason other than process to object I would have no issue, but process alone, when the process itself notes that there can be exceptions, seems insufficient to me. However, I think we can consider this matter settled; you are satisfied with the situation, and while I think this was a waste of time and effort, the issue I was trying to correct has been addressed elsewhere, though with many more words. BilledMammal (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I have addressed all the concerns that you have raised (but feel free to raise them again if you'd like me to). If you feel satisfied with the byproduct of our disagreement, as I do, this issue likely has reached its conclusion. Have a good day. Pilaz (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree that we need to agree to disagree; I hope you have a good day too, and happy editing. BilledMammal (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: AfD
Any source analysis that is confined only to sources used in the current version of an article is pretty much irrelevant at AfD, per WP:BEFORE. And since you have frequently based your own "source analyses" on the assumption - unsubstantiated by WP policy - that multi-page discussions are required for RS coverage to be significant, I will take comments like this one for precisely what they are worth. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's notability policy (in reality a guideline) is to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That's the GNG. You can believe that many trivial crumbs amount to GNG, but that's also unsubstantiated. In my opinion (and the one of the majority of editors), if a source alone does not count towards the GNG, then it cannot be included with other sources to make up for its deficiencies. Either a source counts towards the GNG, or it doesn't. It's been a recurring question since at least 2007, and I invite you to go through the archives of the guideline to see this debate continually resurface without resolution (fear not, your side of the argument is also represented). At any rate, I would recommend worrying about your own source analysis (or lack thereof) before worrying about the one of others. Best, Pilaz (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: I am not under the misapprehension that the GNG doesn't require significant coverage; what I am saying is that a sentence or two focused on the subject of the article can themselves reflect significant coverage if they are usable in writing an encyclopaedic article (q.v. WP:V and WP:RS, which are actual policies). On this topic, please see all the discussions at WT:GNG (and elsewhere) aiming to establish a more precise standard than the current language of SIGCOV, and the answer always is "it depends". Also note how this situation differs from WP:NCORP and specifically WP:CORPDEPTH, where the requirements operate much more in the way you describe but which have repeatedly been rejected as notability criteria outside the field of organizations.
 * I dare say it is more appropriate at AfD to make a global assessment of the sourcing available for a topic than it is to perform idiosyncratic source analysis based on one editor's personal interpretation of the GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think what you wrote is a fair representation of the debate. Since it is left up to the editors to apply the GNG one way (individual dissection of sources) or the other (global assessment of the sourcing available), on a case-by-case basis at AfD, an interpretation is required. And interpretation is inherently subjective. I'm not disputing your right to interpret it that way, I'm just disputing you calling my side of the philosophical spectrum "unsubstantiated by WP policy". Neither is; it is simply the GNG that is silent on the way to do source analysis. I'm sure two opposing essays could be written on the issue. Pilaz (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Kirr-Deneen
I want to applaud you for your vote on this article. I think we need to avoid any claim that any head of a secondary school is default notable. I feel we have been far too willing to grant default notability to heads of tertiary schools, but secondary schools are clearly a no go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. The red flag is always the word "prestigious" for me. Prestige is a social construct which is inherently contextual, subjective, and only understood within the realm of social stratification. The GNG is the only valid "prestige" test in my opinion. I also agree that secondary school heads should generally not be on Wikipedia, with the exception of those rare ones who meet BIO from a variety of sources, not just local. Pilaz (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The other exception may be people who did other notable things who either later or earlier were heads of secondary schools. There may be some exceptions for founders/heads of secondary schools that later became tertirary institutions, but I have seen a few such cases where we have an article only sourced to the institutions own publication and nothing to suggest that the person would meet any other notability guidelines. A few of these are probably prime candidates for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, if they do notable things and coverage follows, that's a different question. There are certainly others, and now that Who's Who UK is at RSN, I wonder how many pages are only sourced to that biographical compendium. Happy to help, if needed. Pilaz (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, MJL, that's really kind of you! Pilaz (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: United Nations in popular culture has been accepted
 United Nations in popular culture, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=United_Nations_in_popular_culture help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 15:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I just thought I'd mention it
Articles for deletion/List of feature films with LGBT characters. If you feel like UN-izing that one, it would be... just fabulous. Btw, consider a WP:DYK for the UN-article (quickly!) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

If you check the DYK examples on the mainpage, your hook should have a link to your article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the tips,, regarding the DYK process. Regarding the LGBT characters list, I currently lack the time and expertise to make the LGBT character become prose or to create a parallel article that quotes the main works on the topic. It could certainly be done thanks to the sources listed in the "additional readings", though. I don't think I can get a DYK nomination in on time, but I'll keep it in mind for a future article. Thank you! Pilaz (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever you feel is best. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Lady Eliza Manners
Hi! Missed your comment until the AfD closed and wanted to clarify mine. I have no issue with your nom, it was absolutely valid as she isn't at all notable. I meant I hate the solution of redirecting a woman to her family, but in this case it was better outcome than deletion, even though I'm not sure she's a likely search. Star  Mississippi  22:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand better now - and I agree with you regarding the redirection to the family, which I also am not a fan of, given that women don't inherit titles. Thanks for the clarification! Pilaz (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * any time. As someone said at a similar AfD, the problem isn't the deletion/redirection so much as the initial creation of someone who stands almost no chance of notability.I wish in general we waiting for someone to do something vs. creating an article in anticipation that they might. Have a good day! Star   Mississippi  02:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Duchess of Rutland
Hello, I've noticed that you've been exploring the notability of this woman and her immediate family. They were the subject of a 2015 documentary called The Last Dukes (which can be seen on YouTube). The Duchess herself is a sort of entrepreneurial type and there are some interviews with her outside of it if this helps establish her notability. She effectively administers Belvoir Castle and various movie filmings and weddings there are her brainchild. If you find this noteworthy, let me know. I don't think the daughters are independently all that notable but I'd make a case for her. The duke himself is a tossup for me. --Killuminator (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing that to my attention, that's a source I would have otherwise missed. I also believe the daughters to be below the threshold of notability, and the duke himself is also on the edge for me. Planning to do a thorough check this weekend, so I'll let you know what I think regarding the duchess. Pilaz (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

About your message
Hello. I have read your message. What exactly would you like to know? I would have thought that the reason for adding a book review was perfectly obvious. James500 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * My message on your talk page is a request to better summarize your changes in the edit summary. "Add" as an edit summary is really lacking, since it forces me to review every single edit of yours, including the uncontroversial cosmetic edits. Could you better summarize what you do in each edit? It would save other editors a lot of time and probably better help explain why you are making the changes in question, which would also result in fewer edit disputes and reverts. Thank you. Pilaz (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. I will do that. James500 (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you James. For the record, I think your edits were absolutely genuine and you made a good job in giving edit summaries to your most controversial ones. And if you're looking for inspiration: for non-controversial cosmetic/copyediting edits, I tag them as minor and write "ce" in the edit summary; for non-minor edits, I try to explain why I do the things I do. Cheers! Pilaz (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

UN in popular culture
now restored to you userspace for the time being.  DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @: Done with the userspace article. A big thank you for allowing me to continue my work at Draft:United Nations in popular culture. Pilaz (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You used some language from it, unless it's things you previous added to the deleted version yourself, we may need to keep it for attribution. One way I can do that is to move it to a variant title and make it a redirect. Any suggestions?  DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @: Thanks for checking.The only paragraph that is partially transcluded is about the reviews to the Interpreter (which I wrote) - see diffs, . I also wrote but took no inspiration from it to write the entry for the film in the Draft article. As for a potential redirect name: how about "UN in popular culture"? Pilaz (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good choice- it's a resonable look-up term;; let me know when ready for mainspace.   ``  DGG ( talk ) 10:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * United Nations in popular culture is now in mainspace after a super speedy draft review at AFC. Pilaz (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG, I think I forgot to ask you to complete this task: could you move User:Pilaz/United_Nations_in_popular_culture to the history of UN in popular culture (a redirect), now that United Nations in popular culture is back in mainspace as a completely rewritten article? Thank you. Pilaz (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you see my reply?
By any chance did you see my reply to you at Wikipedia talk:Formatting bilateral relations articles back in January of this year? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't use obituaries to determine notability
I just read User:Pilaz/Don't use obituaries to determine notability, which must be an early draft. Obviously the acid test in the GNG is that someone needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There is no prejudice there against obituaries, so long as they comply with those three rules. The main thing worth analysing is surely which sources are reliable and independent. I agree with you that the NYT and BBC are, and that family-written public notices are not. It does seem to me though that the title of the essay has a built-in prejudice against obituaries, which very often are the most substantial and coherent coverage of a notable life. What matters is not whether the piece is an obituary, but what the nature of the publication is. Moonraker (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Deputy Lieutenants
I saw your comment that the position of Deputy Lieutenant is “only an honorary position”. That is mistaken. DLs are appointed to take a share in the work of their Lord Lieutenant, mostly just attending events, but sometimes attending royal visits, awarding medals, and so on. In itself, being a DL is not a guarantee of notability, but most people chosen as DLs are in fact distinguished in some way, as on many occasions they will need to represent the monarch, so many DLs do in fact comply with WP:N. Moonraker (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Notability with Wikipedia is determined by meeting the WP:GNG. Additionally, SNGs are indicators of notability, on a case-by-case basis. There is no SNG for DLs, meaning that the default for DLs is the GNG. Many do not meet the GNG, which helps explain why there is no SNG for them in the first place, and why we have deleted many DL articles in the past. Pilaz (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , I agree with the technical side of what you say, and I would not want DLs to have a free pass to notability, like members of parliament. But my main points still stand. (1), DL is not an honorary post, real duties of representing the monarch go with it, something to bear in mind. (2) Because of that, most DLs are in fact quite distinguished people, so it is a pointer that they are likely to be notable, if the sources are looked for, rather than the reverse. Moonraker (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, going back to your original comment, the proper term would be "only a ceremonial position", rather than honorary. As to their notability, it would be a pointer if en-wiki adopted it as an SNG. However, to reiterate, no such SNG exists, and articles of DLs have routinely been deleted at AfD: examples include Articles for deletion/Sir Charles Stronge, 7th Baronet, Articles for deletion/Sir James Stronge, 2nd Baronet, Articles for deletion/Richard Birdwood, Articles for deletion/Jane Williams, Baroness Williams of Elvel, Articles for deletion/Thomas Hext, Articles for deletion/Dr Paul Knapman, Articles for deletion/Commander Herbert Roff Newton, and Articles for deletion/Sir Philip Grey Egerton, 11th Baronet. This is normal due to the sheer number of DLs: in East Sussex county alone, where 850,000 live, there can be up to 49 DLs. If one scales this to the UK population, one gets potentially 3000 DLs - many of which have not received the kind of coverage required by the GNG, and most likely never will. Pilaz (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic–South Ossetia relations
Hi! You rescued this article on AfD - would you like now to rewrite it? Its current text is in no way an encyclopedic article. Wikisaurus (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can help add the few sources that I found during the AfD search process. Do you think a structure similar to Guinea–Spain relations would work here? Pilaz (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

where is the move review for this one?
Can you give the correct link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austro-Italian_border In ictu oculi (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's co-nominated with Franco-German border at MR, which is what I tried to indicate in the first sentence. The editors and closer are the same, the close uses the exact same rationale, and the messages are exact replicas to the word. Pilaz (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you
Hey there, I just wanted to stop to thank you. You noticed my copyvio problem early last year, and I want to say thank you because you stopped me from engaging in some really bad behavior that I had never stopped to consider just how bad it was. I have been going through the CCI pages in reverse from page 10 back to the first page since then, and I'm in the first half of page 3 at this point. It's slow going, but I have many thousands of edits to go through. :) I'm taking a better safe than sorry approach with rewriting. I hope I'm getting it right. BOZ (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey there! It's really great that you've taken all this time to remove copyvio problems. Hopefully you don't mind if I try to tackle the Appelcline references first, since I have them on hand? Cheers! Pilaz (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to do the initial work for each article on my own as much as possible, since I feel it's my mess to fix, but if you want to go back over anything from subpages 4 to 10 to make sure I fixed everything sufficiently I would greatly appreciate that. :) There were plenty of Appelcline references throughout my edits. I'm planning to work on pages 2321 to 2360 today, as time allows. BOZ (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:British naval mission to Greece (1919–1921)
Hello, Pilaz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:British naval mission to Greece (1919–1921), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Charvensod... in Italian?
Hi there :) Concerning this edit, why specifying French and Italian for the pronunciation? Since this toponym exists in French only, any speaker of any language should pronounce it as it indicated, in French, so what's the point of specifying French, Italian? Simoncik84 (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * That's a good question, but basically the idea is to show how it's pronounced by French speakers and Italian speakers. Originally I wanted to show the "French" pronunciation of the official toponym, with the /ʁ/ sound (as in regarder), and also include the /r/ sound in second position since it's quite common to hear Charvensod pronounced that way by Italian speakers... what do you think? Pilaz (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I'm not deeply attached to the inclusion of "French" or "Italian", so if you'd rather have those removed, feel free to be WP:BOLD. I was mostly replicating what I saw for other articles like Moscow or Munich. Pilaz (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Pilaz, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:


 * Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
 * Consider joining the NPP Discord to chat with your fellow reviewers in real-time
 * If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
 * If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at New pages patrol/Resources. Remember to take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a search engine) for compliance with the general notability guideline. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for offering to help out! While you're otherwise clearly (over)qualified for NPP, I do have to say that your actions around User talk:Atchom and User talk:Atchom gave me major pause. Overuse of draftify is probably the number one mistake new NPPers make and one of the most common reasons for revoking the right. Using it over disputably reliable sources—regardless of who's right about the sources in the end—and when you know the creator will object, would qualify as "overuse" in my book. If you'll take my advice, try steer clear of draftify entirely when patrolling new pages – it's not as useful as it may seem at first.
 * Regarding WP:NPPSCHOOL, I wouldn't bother. An experienced editor like you will know all the basics already and the rest will get filled in as you go. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Joe, thank you for the opportunity and the links. With respect to draftify, I have changed my mind with respect to it in the way that you suggest - it's best to bring the matter to AfD when reviewing new pages that clearly don't meet the criteria for GNG. In the case of Atchom two years ago, he was introducing articles to mainspace which were below the threshold required by the GNG, since they all solely including one source (the GNG demands multiple). At the time, it seemed to me that Draftify could give him the chance to meet the AFC criteria without demanding the community's attention at AfD, and it seems to me now that I could have just tagged those pages for notability and circled around later to see if they were still in demand of more sources before sending them to AfD at a later time (AfD is a very time-consuming endeavor, especially if one is the nominator and engages in a thorough BEFORE).
 * Obviously this would be different with respect to the NPP process because the workflow prioritizes AfD over draftify, and I will follow it to the best of my ability. With that being said, Atchom was introducing articles with a generally unreliable source (Who's Who UK), and on that point the community consensus hasn't changed, and despite multiple reminders he was still pushing edits with the source, which to me appeared to be disruptive behavior, hence the final reminder. Luckily things smoothed out after discussion, as they usually do.
 * At any rate, your point is well taken, and I will steer clear of draftifying entirely when patrolling new pages as you suggest, and fully agree with your motivation behind this recommendation. Draftifying is usually less transparent than AfD and prone to more belligerence. Pilaz (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)